California's NEW Stop Law

Does STOP mean s t o p ?

Based upon my observations of an intersection containing two stop signs and one bad blind corner on the right that has no stop sign, in other words through traffic with the right of way, at the most 25% actually stop. All others blow through the intersection as if they had the absolute right of way, most never slow to 15 MPH. Some treat it as an open intersection without any stop signs, but most just keep on rolling.

What's my point? The general scofflaw public has ALREADY VOTED IN CALIFORNIA!

They've made stop signs yield signs and probably for the same reasons as bike riders, save on gas, energy, or no laudable reason for actually stopping. Now is several states their thinking about making rolling stops actually legal for bike riders. Here's good explanation of what their talking about doing, thanks to Green Wheels. Here's another good link and discussion on the bike legislation.

---

So what's next? Build roundabouts where no one (mostly) pays any attention to "Yield" signs and slows to 15 MPH in major intersections? Turn all the traffic lights to flashing amber and call it a free for all? In a society where everyone (mostly everyone) thinks they're above the law it might save a few people from getting hurt or killed, in particular pedestrians, thinking the law will protect them. Considering the present state on our streets and highways where these highbinders rule, I'm not real sure any of these new laws protect bikers, old or young.

Of course, it isn't any wonder why people believe they can act above the law with impunity in this country. At one time not too long ago, this country executed criminals for crimes President George Bush and Barack Obama committed. Aside from that, the criminal bankers get rewarded while while the same bankers foreclose on thousands of families on a trumped up economic disaster they caused. Closer to home we've got classic examples of the "Law" protecting and defending the rights criminal killers. One was the poor fellow crossing the street by the North Coast Eureka Co-op and the other was Roger Rodoni just to name a couple. When was the last time you actually saw a police officer enforce a stop sign?

--Joe

Shock and Awe Law

Updated Below - Update II

---

I picked up my Saturday, April 18, 2009, Times-Standard Newspaper this morning and was greeted with this brilliant piece of news: Eureka discussing implementation of citywide rental home inspection. "Citizen task force aims to target crime"

Where do they plan on targeting crime? "Rental home inspections" that's where! It seems some person by the name of Lisa Ollivier wants to ratchet up the police powers in Eureka. Donna Tam of the Times-Standard says about Ollivier:

After years of neighborhood watch, putting pressure on overcrowded houses riddled with drug abuse and cockroaches, and being a part of a citizens' task force to target slum housing and crime in their neighborhoods, Ollivier is looking forward to presenting an ordinance to the Eureka City Council on Tuesday that will help to address those problems one rental property at a time.

This is the commentary of some simple self-serving do-gooder's knee-jerk reaction to problems either not being taken care of by the Eureka Police Department and other responsible agencies or deliberately allowed to exist and fester so as to produce this response for a community that was too gutless to personally deal with their own problems.

First, it's extra judicial police roadblocks to check for drunk drivers, random stops and searches on the highways, then its random stops to check and identify people just walking down the street, now it's "overcrowded houses"! What's next? Our guns? One house at a time? Why not? Constitutional legal protection doesn't mean anything when problems are allowed to fester and grow until we need a "Shock and Awe" solution.

Ollivier says:

When Lisa Ollivier was pregnant with her son three years ago, the late-night activities of neighbors in her Clark District home kept her from getting much sleep.

"There were times when I would be on the living room floor because of gunfire going on," she said.

This it pure NONSENSE! This statement, if factual, is an indictment of the police. Which doesn't surprise me one bit. When my wife and I moved into our new home here in Eureka we had one outlaw neighbor that, when they refused to stop constantly harassing us, I was forced to call the Eureka Police Department for help. All we got for our effort was royally shined on. The police officer politely listened to us, could see we were really upset, but did nothing. All the police did was make the problem worse than before. The neighbor figured they had a green light now that the police couldn't even be bothered to speak to them. In the end I took the problem to the Police Chief to help descalate the situation, for all that was worth; a total waste of time. After exhausting considerable resources in life, health, time and money I was forced to deal with the matter personally. It was either that or move. Dealing with me and my solution was not something either the police nor the neighbor wanted, so the problem abated, but not after considerable unnecessary rancor and visceral anger at everyone involved.

Well, I didn't get this posted Saturday, and Sunday I was greeted with "Growing violence: Marijuana gardens are robbery targets throughout Humboldt County" - frontpage, Times-Standard:

Home-invasion robberies at houses with pot gardens occur with disconcerting regularity in Humboldt County, law enforcement officials say. And the potential for violence in any robbery is high. Within the past six months, at least three people have been shot during suspected grow house robberies in Humboldt County.

"I can't think of a home invasion robbery in the last two years in Humboldt County that hasn't had a drug connection to it," said Eureka Police Chief Garr Nielsen. In every case, "it's almost exclusively marijuana."

What do you expect when a major portion of society believes everyone should have the right to grow and sell marijuana regardless the law or harm and threat to their community? Criminals breed crime and crime breeds violence!

So, what's the solution? Punish (Nuke the innocent women and children.) the people that are the victims of both the criminals and the complicit community?

UPDATE :: Thursday, April 23, 2009
Glass pulls rental home ordinance off the agenda

"Glass said he believes in maximum public input, so he hopes to meet with the task force next week to decide what to do next. He thinks they may set up a public meeting in the future."

That "maximum public input" is the City of Eureka's new public representative, Lisa Ollivier (task force), speaking for the majority? Talk about a classic example of political whoring!

UPDATE II :: Friday, April 24, 2009

His latest bull run on law was published today Friday, April 24, 2009, Times-Standard

Eureka suspends cell tower construction, arranges Verizon hearing

Now Larry Glass has teamed-up with Linda Atkins to push their political "BS" agendas to circumvent the law when not politically expedient. Classic! Atkins says:

Councilwoman Linda Atkins reiterated her opinion that Verizon acted in bad faith when it started construction before obtaining all its permits.

”It's the city's conditional use permit,” she said, adding that the council has the jurisdiction to say whether the cell phone company violated it.

According to Atkins, Verizon acted on bad faith, but apparently the permits aren't worth the paper their written on when the city "council has the jurisdiction to say whether the cell phone company violated it" after the fact. As bad as that is, this statement tells the whole story about these two worthless representatives.

Atkins and Glass both stated that it is important for the council to represent its citizens and listen to their concerns, even if the matter goes to court.

Since when has the "council" listened to the concerns of the people they are supposed to represent? If they had there never would have been a problem to start with. I wouldn't want a cell tower near my home either, but at some point this slap-stick comedy needs some serious truth-telling. Property owner's deep pockets are finite and it's about time these ideological knot heads come to terms with that reality. Frank Jager, the lone dissenting councilman, who by the way received on a fraction of consideration in this lopsided report, was the only one to show some sense of propriety.

Councilman Frank Jager said that while he, too, wants to ensure that the council protects the residents of Henderson Center, he reminded them that in order to fight a lawsuit for them, the council would be putting the other residents of the city at risk.

”We're also required to protect all the residents in this city,” he said.

The concerned people of Henderson Center and others, like yours truly, were sold out, plain and simple. We can either get used to it or take those responsible to task. Maybe next time they'll think about the people they represent when dealing with the Planning Commission before trying to make all land and property owners pay for their sins.

[Source]

--Joe

Can You Live On Hope?

If the Obama Aristocrats in this country have their way, we all may be reduced to begging.

We received this email from a friend and also believe, after some examination, that "the implications ARE frightening!"

H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009

"This is one scary bill! I strongly urge you to get involved! The implications are frightening! Natural News wrote a pretty good short article, and I've included important addresses to save you the time and effort. Please pass this on to all the people you know who might be affected by food production (or the production of herbs and essential oils) or just interested in their rights. I think its clear that Monsanto is at it again."


HR 875 Introduced Feb 4, 2009, has been referred to committee

This bill is of serious concern to all U.S. citizens for many reasons. First is the formation of a Food Safety Administration, which appears to be the food equivalent of Homeland Security. Another is the very broad language used to describe the authority of the proposed FSA and who or what would fall under FSA jurisdiction. As written, the Food Safety Modernization Act could eventually be used to limit or eradicate everything from organic farming to backyard gardening. It also strips state controls over food production, yet another erosion of the 10th Amendment.

Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D - CT) sponsored the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 HR875:

- Her husband, Stan Greenberg, has MONSANTO as a client.
- She received $180k in donations from agribusiness PAC's.

There are 39 cosponsors of this bill. It could be a tough battle. Information and contact of your rep and the committee members are only a few clicks away!

Informative article: http://www.naturalnews.com/025824.html

Online petition: http://www.leavemyfoodalone.org/

Write Your Representative: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

The bill has been referred to the following committees:

House Committee on Agriculture: http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/members.html

Committee on Energy and Commerce: http://energycommerce.house.gov/

It is important to voice your opinion to the committee members as well as your Representative. The best time to address concerns about a bill is while it is under consideration in committee.

READ the bill HR 875: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875
The next meeting of the Senate is Apr 20, 2009; the House next meets Apr 21, 2009.

---

Update :: Saturday, April 11, 2009

Lose your property for growing food? "Big Brother legislation could mean prosecution, fines up to $1 million"

Another link with more information: Could the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 be the End to Farmers’ Markets and Organic Farms?

And . . . just to be fair, here's a differing viewpoint on The Huffington Post.

---

"The only thing that is humiliating is helplessness."

So they make you dependent. First they take away your ability to think, fill you full of lies and phony beliefs, take away our jobs, our homes and businesses, our children, our right to self defense and last but not least, our right to grow our own food. They already got all our money!

More than just a food issue. For 40 years America's Aristocratic Elite have plundered the Middle and Poor Classes and Third World Countries. Systematically taking away their self-esteem, their value as human beings and as sovereign nations. The price we all pay for the right to be members of the community of Nations. Or, are we really looking at "pre-revolutionary France" in America?

--Joe

Tasers and Excessive Force

The Report has discussed Taser use in the past. We firmly believe that Eureka City Police use of Tasers does NOT serve to protect the best interest of the community or its citizens. When will the EPD arm and certify use of the new Taser gun -- called the Shockwave -- a powerful crowd-control weapon?

"With the push of a button at a stand-off distance of up to 100 meters, the Shockwave unit deploys multiple standard TASER® cartridges that are oriented across an area arc. Full area coverage is provided to instantaneously incapacitate multiple personnel within that region."

Tasers Are the New Killers: Watch Their Popularity Surge!

As Taser use proliferates and deaths grow, lack of police accountability becomes a serious problem. Continuing to argue that Taser's are safe is:

... allowing Tasers to occupy a gray area -- not lethal except when they are -- will make it that much harder for police to be held accountable for excessive force and homicide. Cops already get away with shooting suspects dead with little to no consequences. Arming them with Tasers under the pretense that they are safe will only perpetuate this trend as inevitable deaths occur.

Like "pre-emptive" arrests, the 50,000-volt Tasers that London police are carrying as they stand off with G20 protesters this week may be seen as a necessary precaution. But the past several years have shown the slippery slope governments create in the name of security.

This issue seems most appropriate for Humboldt County with its sordid history of impunity and lack of accoutability as Taser use emphasizes police safety rather than that public safety. Because Taser's are proven lethal, this community needs to know every time a Taser is used by the Eureka Police Department or any other agency and why. That report needs to be published by the local news media.

Since Taser use is about intimidation and forced submission, actually torturing "suspects" into agreeing that the police have the right to arrest them, police safety and simple logic suggests people just might be a little more cooperative with police officers:

- "while also suggesting that suspects are less likely to resist police officers for fear of being tasered to death. "People now recognize that the Taser is painful and that Taser -- maybe they're thinking -- may kill me, and they're co-operating too"

If city, county and state governments are putting public safety first, then put out Taser usage so that we know what we're dealing with the next time a police officer decides to have a talk with one us.

You can read the complete discussion here.

Addendum :: Why torture is legal in America today:

America, due to Bush/Cheney policy, has added torture to our standard operating procedure, even if it is now held in abeyance by the Obama administration. That morally reprehensible act, while now out of favor, is essentially legal and Constitutional because no Congressional objection has been made and no one has been held accountable.

[Source of quote]

--Joe

Follow Up to the Follow Up Question about Pot

Update :: Thursday, April 2, 2009 --

The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal - by Glenn Greenwald

The article includes a link to the just published article in the Time's by Joe Klien advocating marijuana legalization. Greenwald also details why President Obama is not releasing the "torture memos" as ordered. That's of interest to the Report because of Taser use and torture.

Citing Failed War on Drugs, Former Seattle Police Chief Calls for Legalization of Marijuana and All Drugs

Here is an interesting interview on Democracy Now with Norm Stamper about why drugs, specially marijuana, should be legal in America. Norm Stamper is a thirty-four-year police officer who retired as Seattle’s chief of police in 2000. He is an advisory board member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. He is the author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing."

Here's an excerpt relating to his common sense efforts to reform marijuana laws:

NORM STAMPER: I actually support the legalization of all drugs. And in fact, the more dangerous or sinister or sensationally reported the experience of certain drugs, the greater the justification for the government, as opposed to drug cartels and street traffickers, to regulate that commerce. There’s been more harm done by the drug war than good. We have spent a trillion dollars prosecuting that war since Richard Nixon proclaimed drugs public enemy number one and declared all-out war on them.

And what do we have to show for it? While rates can fluctuate, drugs are more readily available today at lower prices and higher levels of potency than ever before. So it’s a colossal failure. And the only way to put these cartels out of business and to restore health and safety to our neighborhoods is to regulate that commerce as opposed to prohibiting it.

*****

NORM STAMPER: Last week in Minnesota, before a state house committee, a committee that is considering medical marijuana, I was accused of disrespecting police officers. I quickly corrected that police chief, who was wearing a yellow tie with the language “police lines, do not cross." I apologized if I gave the impression, because I have the deepest respect for frontline police officers. They didn’t make these laws. They are victims of the tension and the hostility that is associated with enforcing or prosecuting the drug war. So it’s not our frontline cops that we need to be concerned about.

The vast majority of police officers, I believe, would legalize marijuana today. They have varying views on the other drugs. Many officers, including police chiefs and sheriffs, have whispered their support to me. When I say, “Well, may I quote you?” the response is, “What have you been smoking? No, you cannot do that.”

You know, some have suggested that President Obama’s dismissal of the marijuana issue last week in the online town hall meeting was done because it’s the third rail. Well, we’ve made it that. Americans have, in fact, bought the propaganda of the drug war. We can’t conceive of it as a public health issue, this whole issue of drug use and drug abuse and prevention and education and treatment, as well as enforcement. We need to rethink it. We need to have the courage, the will and sort of the analytical take on the systemic implications that are associated with the drug war and recognize that there is a much better alternative out there. And I think a whole lot of cops understand it. Certainly, the 10,000 members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition get it.

Read the complete interview here.

Any government truly sensitive to the spoken needs of the people would certainly understand that the father-knows-best approach to government imposed by the conservative elite went out with the Dark Ages. The Democratic principles embodied in a "representative" form of government requires responsible, enlightened (certainly informed) maturity in the majority of those doing the picking. That is, if the system of government is to work as Constitutionally designed. The electorate certainly do not need some wet nurse telling them when, where and how much in between diaper changes. The change in thinking observed in a few courageous people in this country is hopeful. Unfortunately, it's 40 to 50 years too late when you see the legacy we've all inherited.

--Joe

Follow Up to a Question About Pot

This article pretty much sums it all up:

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Politicians on Drugs: Explaining the Lack of Seriousness in D.C.

By Austin Cline: The question of decriminalizing some or all illegal narcotics, to a lesser or greater extent, then regulating and taxing the ensuing trade is a serious matter. There are fair arguments on all sides (because there is range of how far we could go with this, there is arguably more than just one "side") of the debate, but it cannot be dismissed as a pointless, irrelevant, or trivial matter. Yet that's precisely what Barack Obama did at a recent town hall meeting where, based on the reaction, he was surrounded by like-minded apologists for the current structures of power and liberty. Way to break outside the beltway and take it to the people, Mr. President.

Let's run quickly through some of the reasons why it's reasonable to regard the current "war on drugs" as causing more trouble than it solves. Both the violence and corruption associated with illegal drugs are more directly connected to the prohibition of drugs than to the use of drugs. The failure of drug laws to eliminate drug use has encouraged politicians to pass ever more draconian anti-drug laws, thus leading both to unnecessary suffering through harsh sentences for non-violent offenses and a decline in respect for the law when people see police and courts consumed with these cases.

Prohibition also undermines basic constitutional liberties by encouraging police to circumvent laws regulating search and seizures. No-knock warrants combined with paying for tips has led to innumerable raids on the homes of innocent people, including quite a few deaths at the hands of some over-zealous police who no longer seem to care very much about "protecting" and "serving" the public. Prohibition is a nightmare for national security, enriching those who already have a grudge against America and fueling resentment in others who are harmed by American efforts to suppress drug production.

Prohibition damages public health because there is so much resistance to the very idea that any illegal drugs might have any benefits — the prohibition mindset allows for only one response to drugs, no matter who might get harmed in the process. Prohibition is just as bad for the budget, consuming huge amounts of government resources, damaging the productivity of people caught up in the prohibition web, and excluding entire sectors as possible sources of revenue.

These reasons may not be enough to convince someone to support ending prohibition, but they are more than enough to cast doubt on prohibition and deserve stronger arguments in response. To put it another way, they are serious and substantive enough to earn something equally serious and substantive in return.

To be fair, it must be acknowledged that Obama was asked about a policy which is still viewed with suspicion and even fear by so many people in America. The case against prohibition may deserve a serious and substantive response, but that's hard to do when so many people's have been taught to react to drugs in a one-dimensional way: just say no. Opponents of prohibition thus have two hurdles: before they can convince people of their arguments, they must also convince people that any arguments should be considered at all.

Support for varying degrees of decriminalization and/or legalization has grown in recent years, but it's still a relative minority position with fierce opposition. That, however, is an argument for Obama to not wholeheartedly endorsing the idea — it's not an argument to dismiss it as a joke. Remember, decriminalization and legalization aren't just about eliminating one isolated restriction on people's liberty. It's not just about allowing people to get high as legally as they get drunk, though that's what so many tend to think about.

The question Barack Obama was asked ties into medical questions, sustainable farming and manufacturing (with hemp), new sources of tax revenues, and more. His dismissive and even flippant response suggests that he's unaware of all this; a serious response, even in the negative, would have indicated that he understands the complexity of the matter and simply arrived at a different conclusion. Something along the lines of "I understand why people argue for this idea and they make some good points, but I just don't agree with their conclusions" would have been a reasonable, respectful response. It would have avoided scaring apologists for the failed war on drugs while signaling to supporters of legalization that they should keep working on their arguments to make a better case. So why didn't he do that?

Sadly, that's a question which a lot of progressives have been asking on a lot of issues. Barack Obama has been touted as a progressive president, but it's hard to find examples which support such a label. Indeed, the Congressional Progressive Caucus — the largest ideological group among Congressional Democrats — is the only major faction which Barack Obama has not met with. Obama has managed to find time to meet with conservative and moderate Democrats, all of whom have been working against progressive policies, but not with the more reliable supporters of progressive policies.

Yes, I know it's necessary to reach out to less reliable supporters in order to make a political agenda work, but that doesn't require ignoring or taking for granted your regular supporters. It's not a progressive value — or even smart politics — to present yourself as a progressive who somehow keeps ignoring other progressives. This, combined with Harry Reid whining that liberal Democrats shouldn't pressure moderate Democrats to stop standing in the way of progressive legislation, leaves the distinct impression that Democratic leaders across the board are consistently looking for ways to ditch progressivism in favor of a more conservative agenda.

--Joe

A Question About Pot

There seems to be a general across the country priority issue with legalizing marijuana that found it's way to trump President Obama's agenda for his fancy cyberspace town hall meeting as reported on Politico: Pot takes center stage at townhall. One of the most popular questions was about legalizing drugs.

Politico's Josh Gerstein says, "While Obama’s answer was unequivocal, it was also dismissive and didn’t explain why legalization was unwise."

The question and the President's comment:

“There was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high: that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation,” Obama said, with a chuckle. “I don’t know what this says about the online audience.”

“This was a fairly popular question — we want to make sure it was answered. The answer is no. I don’t think that is a good strategy to grow our economy,” he said to laughter and applause from the live East Room audience of union members, teachers, business leaders and others.

We all know how a large number of local's feel about this issue. There was a lot of happy blogging recently when everyone thought President Obama actually heard the voices, wants, and needs of the people, to quote:

"Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would defer to state governments whether to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes."

I wonder if they all feel so full of hope today? I doubt it. It seems more and more that there's one heck of a big difference between what President Obama says and what he does. Here's his latest shot at a California Marijuana Medical Clinic: Drug Agents Raid SF Medical Marijuana Clinic.

Then there's his promise to take ALL combat troops out of Iraq by August 2010. Today, we learn he's been feeding everyone a line of bull right from the start. You can read about this in the interview on Democracy now with Gareth Porter: Report: Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq

Nearly four weeks ago, President Obama declared that US combat operations would end in Iraq by August 2010. Despite Obama’s pledge, new evidence has emerged that the US plans to keep combat brigades in Iraq, but they will operate under a different name.

You can read his complete report: Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq here.

Wouldn't it be nice, for once, to have a President of the United States everyone could trust and honestly believe that he's working for and defending the interest of ALL people? It took the country a while to see President George Bush's true colors, but this President is laying it on the line coming right out the gate.